Skip to main content

About this Show

Book TV

Iran Education. (2013) James Zogby, 'Looking at Iran The Rise & Fall of Iran in Public Opinion.' New.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17






United States 29, Washington 27, Us 21, Iran 21, Tehran 10, U.s. 9, China 8, America 7, Afghanistan 6, Libya 5, Chicago 5, Israel 4, San Francisco 4, Tunisia 3, Syria 3, New York 3, Jimmy Carter 3, Phil Gramm 3, New York City 3, Iraq 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Book TV    Iran  Education.  (2013) James Zogby, 'Looking at  
   Iran The Rise & Fall of Iran in Public Opinion.' New.  

    August 5, 2013
    8:30 - 11:01pm EDT  

>> we have really never known what to do with our first ladies and that is particularly true in more recent times. on the one hand they are expecting to have causes. we can imagine a first lady been without a cause. on the other hand those causes are not permitted to intrude upon lawmaking or an official capacity. so it's always been a tightrope and seeing how each of these
women walk that tightrope tells you would not -- tells you a lot not only about them but about the institution and about society. "the washington post" company agreed monday to sell its flagship newspaper to founder and chief executive jeffrey these those. ownership of the paper after four generations. next week at back at former "washington post" owner the late
katharine graham discussing her biography, personal history. c-span: author personal history did your children learn anything from this book about you? >> guest: that's a hard question. i'm sure they probably did but i couldn't tell you exact a wife. c-span: all of the stuff in here about your early life and your husband about that, did you talk that out? >> guest: yes, i think they understand that he was ill. the oldest one was 20 and the youngest one was 11 so they had to deal with it then and always. c-span: the question i had after i read the book was why do you want us to know all of this? >> guest: i really don't suppose that i meant to tell everything to everybody but once i sat down to write my story i just tend to be frank and open
and i wanted to be very truthful and i wrote it the way i saw it. i told it the best i could. c-span: when did you start it? >> guest: about six and a half years ago i started to do the research for this book. i actually had the idea even longer ago than that. c-span: you addressed early in the book that he wrote it yourself. >> guest: i did but i also had very good assistance from researcher evelyn swan. c-span: how did you go about it? >> guest: for about two years we did research because i had no diaries. so, we looked up all the letters and luckily i grew up in the day where we all wrote letters all the time.
so we had a lot of those and we had memos from the post. we had a lot of papers that i didn't know we had and that helped a lot. and then we did 250 more or less interviews with my contemporary starting with schoolmates and working to politicians and judges and other people that we dealt with. that helped fill in the record. c-span: what year did your father by the book? >> guest: in 1933. he had just gotten out of the governmengovernmen t had been out for three weeks. he started the reconstruction under hoover and he stayed as federal reserve chairman for a little while and the roosevelt. he didn't like the monetary policies and went to mt. kisco. the post came up three weeks later for an auction on the
steps of the building and he bought it anonymously. c-span: what did he bid on it? >> guest: $825,000. >> host: . c-span: how many newspapers were in washington? >> guest: there were five and the was fifth in the field of five so it had a circulation of 50,000. so he started in and he was the businessman in the david knew how to turn around this mrs. but he never had any newspaper experience and he encountered the most tremendous difficulties in finding his way up. he really did a terrific job starting with nothing. c-span: where is mt. kisco? >> guest: mt. kisco where they lived in the summer was about 50 miles from new york city and westchester county and we went there every summer. they have till this large house
there thinking that my father was going to live there when he was on wall street and he was going to commute to wall street but it just got built when we moved to washington, when they moved to washington. c-span: when did your father made your mother? >> guest: in 1912. they met in a museum in new york city and my father picked up a friend and i were driving downtown and an old car that he had called the stanley steamer. he picked up his friend whom he didn't know very well or like very much and he said he would like to give him a ride but he was going to stop off at a japanese print show. they did that and they saw my mother walking around at the show. my father said to his friend, that is the woman i am going to marry. and so the friend said, well then you have to speak to her.
my father said no, no that would spoil everything. one of us is going to meet her and whoever meets her first will call the other one. about two weeks later the friend called my father and said guess what? and he said you have met the girl. he said, i have and i have arranged that we are all going to have dinner. that was on lincoln's birthday and they were married two years later. c-span: what impact did it have on his life that he was jewish and she was -- >> guest: neither one of them i have to say we are very religious. my mother may be a little more than my father. he had at the age of 14 studied for a bar mitzvah and then he decided, he said i believe some
of that but not all of that and i'm not going to do that. he was very very ethical, very driven, very immoral but he wasn't formally religious. neither was she buys but her family was and his family was. and so she took us to church, but not very formally. c-span: issue grew older from time to time he seen the book were anti-semitism came into life. how often? >> guest: almost not at all strangely when i was young. a couple of times. one was when i was in school and somebody was casting the merchant of venice sunset maybe i should pay -- playing shylock because i was jewish and i didn't have any idea that i was or there was such a thing and i knew nothing about it. but some other point they said my father was a millionaire and i didn't know what either one of them had met. i went home and asked my mother
what it meant to be jewish and what it meant to be a millionaire. i don't think i got any explanation for either one at that point. but then later in college it came up with this at coors was more of an issue. i had spent my whole youth bizarrely unaware of the issues or of anti-semitism or of anything. i should have known a lot more about it actually ,-com,-com ma known both of their heritage is and what it meant to be jewish and what it meant to be lutheran but it simply wasn't mentioned. either way i'm sure they were not ashamed or worried about it. it's just that nothing intimate was talked about in my family. righto how many other kids in the family? >> guest: there are five of us in all and i was the fourth. c-span: how many are still alive? >> guest: i have two sisters, my sister rosa florence and one younger. she was four years younger than
me and there were two years between the rest of us. c-span: you grow up where? >> guest: well we spent our first years in new york and that is the strange part of the story because my family had moved to washington. they were there for almost four years before they moved us to washington so we were living mostly with governessgoverness s and music teachers and things like that in a new york apartment. they would come up in between and visit us and occasionally my sisters would get around to washington. but i was a baby. when i was four we all moved to washington. c-span: where did you go to college? >> guest: i went for two years to the universiuniversi ty of chicago. i changed. c-span: and a fellow named mortimer adler i see taught you. >> guest: well it was of course mortimer adler and albert hutchens together the president of the university.
great ideas in the western world. they thought hutchens had a theory that i think started at st. johns college in annapolis. if you learned the great ideas of the western world, but that would be your education. so this course started with aristotle and went all the way up to through saint st. thomas aquinas and to freud and marx. they drilled you. it was a socratic method and you have to kind of stand up for yourself and defend your ideas to them. it was very rigorous training and i really liked it but it was very hard. c-span: who became your favorite philosopher out of them? >> guest: i think i liked the greeks. i liked aristotle who talked about happiness and it ends up like him i was really interested in that.
c-span: after college what? >> guest: well, i had proudly gone off and got myself a job at the university of chicago. i mean i used my labor relations professor paul douglas who later became a senator knew the publisher of the thin chicago times the afternoon tabloid and i went down there and asked him for a job and he said he would take me but if i wasn't any good then i shouldn't think he was going to keep me. i said i would like to try it. i went home and my father asked me to go to san francisco on a train because he was going to the reserve. i said fine. i had never seen san francisco and i stayed there while he was at the bohemian grove. he came back and i said i love this town. i will swallow my pride and give up my job in chicago if you help me find a job.
he did. c-span: you met harry bridges. >> guest: i covered along sherman's neighbor a lockout on the whole waterfront, everybody working in the warehouses. it was two years after they buried bloody well-known along sherman's strike. i was asked by the labor reporter to do the legwork on this. i went up and down the waterfront and got to know the negotiator for the union sam kegel and the head of the warehouser's union and occasionally harry bridges and i have to say although it was incorrect these days i socialize with them at night. we went up and down the waterfront in what is known as euler makers. c-span: and they were, whether
makers? >> guest: >> guest: whiskey beer and mixed any to get a third one free if you pay 25 cents for the first two. c-span: you say my political outlooks developed further as a committed liberal primarily passionate anti-fascists and sympathetic for the labor movement. still there? >> guest: honestly, no. i want to do with organized labor and we do but i think then they were just getting organized and the industrial were all new, the steel and the miners were unorganized. they were just getting organized and so they would situate their labor conditions were quite bad. right now, some of the unions are fine just the way they are and many businesses i feel have
gotten into the practices that are not particularly constructive and they have to be rethought. like featherbedding when it's not needed. c-span: after all of these ears what is your old philosophy today? how would you define yourself? >> guest: i am about where i was. i am centrist probably more democratic than not but i am independent and i voted for republicans as well as democrats but i feel strongly about issues of racial justice and poverty in cities and i feel strongly that there has to be something done within the context of the way this country is. and i am obviously committed to all the values such as freedom of speech and the things that i feel enlightened the semi-liberals.
c-span: do you think people would be surprised you voted for george bush in 1980? >> guest: i suppose so because i think the most surprised person would probably be president bush. write to what what you think you'd be surprised? >> guest: well i think most presidents get sensitive about the post and "newsweek" as well and he had his issues with us but i think any president does. but i suspect he would not think i voted for him. c-span: give us a thumbnail sketch of the post today. how many newspapers and television stations? how big is said and what is the revenue on a yearly basis? >> guest: we are about ad 1.6 million in annual revenues and the company holds mainly "the washington post" and we have a small newspaper the
herald and half of the international "herald tribune" and may have "newsweek" and six television stations and 1.5 million cable connections, and we also have -- which is our medium of "the washington post" web site. c-span: are you still chairman of the executive committee? -- committee. >> guest: i am. c-span: how long were you chairman of "the washington post"? >> guest: 30 years. that's a little bit average. c-span: go back to san francisco in the to washington. what was your first job at the post? >> guest: well, actually i worked there summers in college. after school. in 1939 when my father came out and suggested that i come back
to san francisco and work on the post and it was time for me to leave there in many ways and i was happy to do that. c-span: what was your job? >> guest: it was the low person on the editorial page. i edited letters to the editor. i made up that page and i wrote a few editorials. c-span: when did you meet phil gramm? >> guest: that year that i came back. i was really surprised because when i left washington to go to college it was still a very republican town and it was kind of stuffy. you know there were parties of my parents age and then our parties were dances and third-generation real estate. when i got back the new deal had come and the town was just full
of attractive young men. it was not the town i remembered and i was simply thrilled. c-span: how did you meet him? >> guest: i met him in a house where i got to know some of the people, two of the people that worked on the posts that were living there and there were 12 bachelors in this house. he was one of the 12 and i didn't meet him until he was going out with some other women, girls. and i actually met him one night when we were all going to a restaurant and we were coming back. they were living at s street and they haven't moved to arlington. the tail end of the party was coming in and i unfortunately a screen fell out onto his head and he was startled and looked up. i looked at him and in fact i met a girl that night when i
went to the bathroom and she said she went to law school and i said how marvelous. i could never do that. tell me about it. it. how do he do it? she said i am engaged to phil gramm and he comes by and picks me up and we talk things over and that helps a lot so i just said oh. and then they broke up and he went out with a friend of mine. she said did i know phil? i said no i didn't and she said you should. he's just the greatest. i said oh. and then about new year's my sister gave a party and invited everybody at the house. he was in the party and we first got to know each other that way. this developed rather quick lee because the third time we went out together he discussed marriage.
c-span: the third time. >> guest: the third time. c-span: how much later did you marry? >> guest: i said this was a little hasty but i was intrigued by the idea. but i said we have to be deliberate and wait a month. i think we hardly did wait a month and we were married that june. he was working for supreme court justice and he was going to clerk for justice frankfurter that year so when the court adjourned we were married in 1940. c-span: both just as reagan frankfurter were at the wedding? was one of them the best men? >> guest: no. c-span: justice frankfurter was how close to you and your husband? >> guest: he was a mentor to phil who had gotten to know him when he was still at harvard law school and he chose the first five clerks from the law school board of which phil was one.
and i had known him because my parents were friends of his too that i did not know him well. that year we have really became great friends and he was simply wonderful to us. and he was so funny and so intimate. he liked the boys to argue with him and particularly the law clerks. if they didn't agree with him they would indulge in screaming fights. i was shocked by some of their manners but he liked this confrontation and he liked to discuss issues like that. he was wonderful to me and to us and both he and mrs. frankfurter who became a friend's too were very very close to us. c-span: how many children did you and phil gramm have? >> guest: i had for and by
oldest is a list of those who is a journalist and writes for the post on foreign affairs but everything's too. donald who was chief executive officer of the company. william, called bill who has an investment partnership in los angeles but who lives on the vineyard in the summer and is very interested in loves the vineyard. he lives next door to his children and i love that in stephen who is married in new york and is getting a postgraduate degree in literature and teaching but he has been in the theater and has produced and has an experimental theater. c-span: you lost a son. >> guest: i lost their first baby which was tremendously traumatic, who was born full term but because it was in
washington during the beginning of the war and the hospitals were very busy. it was an accidental thing in the hospital that really shouldn't have happened. phil went into the army army right afterward so it's pretty devastating. c-span: what impact did it have on you? >> guest: well it was just awful. i thought phil was going into the army and it it was fan of everything and we would never have any children something might happen to him. it was a pretty awful moment. c-span: how long could phil graham spend in the army? >> guest: well he went in and it was two and a half years i think. c-span: when did he go to work for the post? >> guest: my father talked to him when he was an officer school. he had by this time invested heavily in both financial resources and energy in an effort in building up the post
matt. it was very discouraging because they were losing money every year and he was making progress of great kinds both in circulation and to some extent advertising. it was just so terribly discouraging and he wanted to make sure that he had a successor in place. my brother was by then a psychiatrist and was interested in madison. he asked bill if he would be interested. we had long talks about it and i said he had to decide and he did finally. he said what did i think? i said i loved washington but he wanted originally to go into law and politics in florida. c-span: this half brother being senator bob graham? >> guest: he did what his brother aspired to and that is nice.
i think he's a great and very fine senator. >> host: . c-span: how many years was phil graham a publisher? >> guest: 17 and during that time he became publisher when he was not quite 31 because my father went on the post right after he got back in january of 46. six months later my father was offered to the president of the world bank by president truman and he said to phil i won't leave if you don't want me to but this is kind of my first love because that was the kind of thing you done for the government and he thought somebody out to start the world bank. phil said no that was all right and he should do what he wanted to do. my father did that. he took up the struggle and from 47 to 54 he too had the same kind of time, really difficult
time and in 54 my father who had come back from the world bank six months after he went because he did get it started and he did get the regulations changed that made him really frustrated. he felt that he couldn't do any more than he had done that this age. so he had resigned and come back c-span: the last time we had her cameras and robert mcnamara's office he told me that the desk he uses is your father's desk when he was first hit of the world and? >> guest: yet this great big heavy kind of wonderful desk. and he left it to the bank because i guess it was huge and kind of cumbersome and he left it there. bob inherited it. his own office? c-span: the reason i bring it up is because you are still close friends with bob mcnamara today?
>> guest: i am, he is a great friend. c-span: did he serve on the board? >> guest: he did. c-span: you devote a lot of time to your husband. have a story about his death ever been told in detail before? >> guest: not consecutively. i think most of what i told had been here and there. c-span: was it hard for you to do that to retell the story, to rethink it, to relive that? >> guest: it wasn't easy not only because of the sensitivity of what i was writing but to cause i wanted to be sure to put it in context. it was a comparatively short period in which he was very ill and did some quite aberrational things. and most of our life together was wonderful and he was wonderful.
and i didn't want the bad part two over shadow the very good park and one of the reasons i wrote this book was to say how great he was and my parents were each in their own way. i thought there were three people that deserve to be remembered and to be written about. ..
>> and he would marry her has i thought might happen because this is pretty spectacular as you can imagine in 1962, it wasn't observed but we had successfully headed his eldest has started to get serious in 157 and then the
episodes were getting closer and worse but people didn't know about it until a very public event happened so they thought this is what happens sometimes. but he said don't say that everybody says that when there has been the leaves them. so i realized i had better not say that but i knew it was a part of that. and he got depressed in the summer of that year, in july, 1963. >>c-span: jack kennedy was killed in november andy were close? >> guest: not closed but they were friends. i knew him to head reid did see something of him. he was also good friends
with the vice president. so he came home and asked the girl to go back home. and he came back to us. he was so ill and so depressed i had seen him through two of these and depressions and i did not feel i could do it again. he in volunteer they did go to the hospital where he killed himself. >>c-span: you talk about your life together but the moment of the eisenhower administration where your husband was actively involved in the civil-rights movement and influencing the arkansas situation at central high school? >> guest: yes. he was involved a little bit.
he was very involved with the bill of rights and civil liberties. actually in 1957 he had become involved with men majority leader lyndon johnson passing the 1957 civil rights lot and it period much helped him to get that law passed by talking to joe and the naacp and by telling them with the voting rights but not with
the december state -- a desegregation. but not to appeal to the jury so it is the very weak and civil-rights law but it was the first in about 84 years and to go before the naacp to accept this and that is the way it was passed. >>c-span: also the first chairman of comstt? >>. >> guest: yesterday eisenhower period he was involved in the deep one dash desegregation of the little rock school and pointed to prevent eisenhower to send the troops in there. he worked very hard and emphatically to try to get everybody together.
and to this was standing firm against the desegregate -- desegregation but it was the first in 1957. >>c-span: what is your opinion about how involved he was with the media or the government? at. >> guest: just before he died he was editor of the communications satellite inc.. he was head of that. >>c-span: hath government and half private. >> guest: i think that is not the job anybody would dream of doing these days before that heavily involved in politics and with lyndon johnson and i tell a story about desegregation he kept
the story out of the paper but made a deal with the interior department when he added the story of a riot that had taken place that they would desegregate he would use that to influence the news and i think that is unacceptable these days because you have to influence events by giving people information on which they can make decisions. so i think it would not happen today. >>c-span: you said not until years later i looked at the downside of all of this sid realize perversely i had seemed to enjoy the role of the doormat wife for whatever reason i like to be dominated and implemented on page 140. >> guest: i meant it the way it is written. i did not feel put upon i adore our life for i liked
being the chief operating officer and did everything at home and to care the children and made the decisions about summers it kept the house is run inning and moved and did everything because he was working so hard and i try to take the pressure off by doing everything at home i was interested in meeting the people he met and i adored the family. i don't know if i saw myself the way people would you be in that situation now and then to do this often which of course, is ridiculous you can work or not work these days you have choices but you have to have your own identity and tear of
interest. >>c-span: you said it would be right across the street to relive? how did that happen? >> guest: in a weird way because there is a beautiful cemetery across the street there were not many places and he got kind of interested to have a pot there for us it is like getting into a club or something. with the john walker's for the people that they knew had a plot and he said we should be sandwiched in there somewhere so they came home from school and said i have a plot because i have become acquainted with somebody and we can't get in
and it became a family joke. and with what happened we never thought of it as a reality. so one of my sons had made the arrangements. so i had no idea it was literally across the street from the house in front of the little chapel. i was startled when we arrived there after the funeral to find it was right there in front of my eyes and of course, it bothered me but now i like it. >>c-span: you have lived in that house for the last 34 years? >> guest: 60. >>c-span: never remarried? but we burn in the book that you had souders like a satellite stevens? >> guest: no.
[laughter] i had friends. >>c-span: is a hard to be in a job like yours to resist the attention that you would get? >> guest: actually, no. because i worked terribly hard in a move to around and i had a life it is something i had to do or did not want to do or i would stay home. and i don't think i could be buried to anybody that was strong and wanted me to be there more than i was. so would never came up as a practical fact. >>c-span: after your husband shot himself how long before you took over the post? >> guest: i took away for one month i did not take
over the post but i went to learn the issues i did not see myself as taking over the post but i did go to work right away and gradually i learned you could be there and i was encouraged by some of the executives like the chairman who was our corporate lawyer and he said you have to come to work and i was happy to do that because i cared a great deal about the company and the post which i had struggled for its existence. it had been part of my whole life and i knew what went into and to make it as sex fault -- successful as it even was. so gradually i was going to work to learn and worked
with him and worked as president of the company. i became publisher when the other -- previous publisher left and then 10 years later than i did take over the company. >>c-span: you call 71 to 76 the turbulent years. white? >> guest: because rapidly we went through the up "pentagon papers" and watergate and just as i thought things would calm down, we went through a large strike him in 1975 so those were very cosmic events that happened in public so to speak. >>c-spane "pengon papers" chapter, i wrote
some games down the back because there are so many people that people had heard of people in the government and out of law firms i just want to know how you kept all of these people street. for instance you had your lawyer bill rodgers who was secretary of state. >> guest: no. >>c-span: he was not you're the lawyer then but he had been. paul ignatius' the president of your company was secretary of the navy. croswell kirkpatrick played a role somewhere. >> guest: he was a partner and before that he was in the government and then deputy defense secretary. >>c-span: and williams was
your husband's attorney. >> guest: when he was thinking he wanted a divorce and. >>c-span: in to take your money to go the other way but did you would leave on him. >> guest: we became very close friends but then later we would go in together. >>c-span: and mcnamara was that the night of the "pentagon papers" and he asked your advice is to tell the same story here and in addition he was a very close friend of yours in the western bureau and try to work for you but i guess when i was reading this that you would go on to think so highly of as the national editor but any way with the pentagon papers how you deal in a town like this 11 day they are your lawyer but then it is the government --
working with the government were you confused? >> no. most people in the government you can be friends with people but it you remember what comes first sometimes the paper attacks the friends are he thought were friends or sometimes you can reason but mostly you just have to stand by it. >>c-span: when you travel talking to people you lived in sioux falls? and chicago, said francisco, where else? >> guest: not much. mostly washington. >>c-span: people and get the post and washington and they are cynical of the power and control and how would you tell them about the people that are away from here that
you do not have too much power? >> guest: i tried to explain the paper of a magazine or a television or magazine are for instance "the post" has the power to inform people and if they cover it well, it matters because you talk to the government as well as people in washington. but sometimes people thank you go upstairs to talk to the editors. you don't. i mean about a story you don't see the story before they get in the paper. you have the power to take an editor the you think for a publisher or whenever to do the job well in general but after that they have autonomy.
indeed have the power of what people envision you as having to influence the events directly it sounds like more goodies to shoes. >>c-span: do said news columns had to be detached although recognizing there is no such thing as objectivity. >> guest: detaches the word that i think is better because objectivity the way people interpret it if you exercising judgment so that is what i mean there is no such saying as objectivity at&t you do with the best you can to be accurate but
you are making a human judgment. >>c-span: day remember the first person to you personally had to fire? and what their work experience was like? >> guest: i do. but i don't want to talk about a. [laughter] >>c-span: you do talk about it. >> guest: i do in the book. a dear friend and was very painful. >>c-span: was his grandson working? >> guest: yes. >>c-span: the guy who was with him all the time. peters said i felt i was hopelessly inadequate leader if he had little choice but to leave for cbs he tested by ross sensitivity with his ultimatum for not being a
professional manager and i wept on and off for at least one day. why did you add it to all of that? was the circumstance? >> guest: i really don't know. i tried to be up-front and honest. >>c-span: when was peter there? what job did he have? >> guest: i forget his sexual title he was number two at "newsweek" but then after that scene he came back from cbs and rand "newsweek." >>c-span: he told you to your face you we're doing a lousy job? but then you say in to add to my anxieties peter told me he found another job.
and then you brought him back? >> guest: yes. >>c-span. [laughter] why? >> guest: i cannot mention that. >>c-span: later. >> guest: it seemed like the thing to do at the time. >>c-span: then he went back to cbs then he came back again in he was quite willing to star in again what was wrong with me and the company but i was tougher in once was enough i did not need to repeat the monologue. what toughened you up? >> guest: [inaudible] >>c-span: to what purpose? >> i think i could make decisions better and more firmly in not quite so much a although i think of was inclined. >>c-span: you say when you
first got to "the post" to be in charge you were petrified about speaking. >> guest: i could not open my mouth i had to practice in front of the children the first year. the third year i was asked to go down to see mary christmas at that company much the children are hilarious they keep telling the story of a practice my speech saying merry christmas in front of the children because i had never said anything in public other than to get my children lined up in a row. >>c-span: when do you make the most important speech? >> guest: i made a lot of speeches and i tried to explain the point of the story after the
administration was not our intention to follow in the footsteps so i started to speak quite a lot that year '73 and '74. >>c-span: in that short time remaining pitcher dan here with you end of free -- every other president what did he think of john kennedy ? >> guest: charming, attractive, and also to have somebody that you knew, your generation in the white house. >>c-span: how is he today in retrospect? >> in the three years before he died at a think he had the chance to get an awful
lot done of what he was trying to voodoo i think they succeeded to get legislation passed of what he wanted to get done but didn't. and then another funny story i was at his 304th wedding anniversary. and he was in a pretty bad mood any way. and afterwards we went upstairs and he went to bet and his bedroom was right upstairs next to the living room but there were double doors but suddenly he came out in the doors were flung open and he said, and here and i looked over my shoulder but he said it to me. come here that is when he
was on the supreme court i believe and he went into his bedroom in the coats were on the bet on the bet. and chief commissioner of was appointed mayor so he appointed a police commissioner in he was displeased because he wanted to prove to be appointed this super police commissioner and he started to yell at me. that was our fault and he
started to undress. this is a 1964. i was new at the job and i thought wait a minute. what is going to happen here? could i be standing here in the president's bedroom? and then he said turnaround. so i turned around and then he said good night. [laughter] quite a beginning. >>c-span: richard nixon? >> guest: i did not know him really. personally. i met him and i talked to him and had lunch at the paper so i saw him but i did not really know him personally. i think he had to many good traits and was a jekyll and hyde type of character
because he would see them come out but the he had very many good people working for him. and now another friend before they're in the white house eidenshink you are never fans with the president if you don't know them before because the power is so great they see people as strangers. we knew what he stood for he was a very dignified and. it did not agree with all that he did but he was a good friend. >> guest: the promises in the failures i am very
hopeful and i certainly hope that they do. >>c-span: you don't see much of him? >> guest: and another generation, a very polite we have mutual friends ibc him a little bit but there is no reason i should see them. >>c-span: the step as part of writing the book? >> guest: it was tough because i am not a professional writer and a really did that was to write it with the writer because i would be too jumpy to tell them not to do that much but it is hard. >>c-span: where did you write it? >> guest: at home on my desk and i wrote to by he and. >>c-span: by he and? i gave it to my researcher who put on a computer who
put it in order and helped me to shape it and make chapters and get it together he was a central -- essentials and left half of it on the floor. >>c-span: 625 pages. >> guest: and might have been told hundred. >>c-span: is there a second book? >> guest: that's it. >>c-span: are you looking forward to the tour around the country? >> guest: sorts of. >>c-span: what you think of the talking part? >> guest: it is hard for me. i don't know why but talking about in public i find very hard and i cannot very good at it either as you cannot see. >>c-span: katharine graham is our guest the book is called personal history. thank you very much.
>> joining as now from the hoover institution from stanford university the director of caribbean studies at stanford and of fellow clergy is the:director of the ivory and democracy project also author of the shah dr. abbas milani when was the shot in power and how did he get there? we mckee was in power 1941 and left 1971 to the ayatollah khamenei with the revolution that was hijacked by the clerics and is not supposed to lead there against the people he came to power and the shop was
pushed out of power and the allied forces occupied with the soviets and they were worried about the nazis depending on who you ask 2,003,000 german extras in the soviet army suffered this defeat in that which connected the persian gulf then allows the allies to resupply so it would get rid of the nazis to become a central but almost reluctantly he became the king. >> reluctantly? >> i think so he was not
anticipating he was sent to the throne. he was not anticipating he would send it to the throne of the occupied country in my sense that i try to convey he was not by a inclination he was not someone who had the drive and that his father had he was very weak in side but also pretended to be very strong and he would roar like a lion like the politician and in that sense but amodernizing peter came
to power in a very crucial time with the very critical piece of real estate, iran from fdr, eisenhower, kennedy, li terally all the president's had said it was one of the most important countries with the days of the cold war with 500 kilometers the soviet union was known to try to get into the persian gulf in to keep iran out was very critical so i ran almost by consensus is for the cold war began. a young man, not tested, as shakespeare would say, comes to a critical thrown in the
troubled land with the communist movement with the soviet union that made it very interesting and critical. >> host: dimension shakespeare a couple of times t. nagy begins each chapter of it "the shah" with a quote from shakespeare. white? >> guest: but reading when i read richer the second to i found a striking similarities the fascination between authority and absolute weakness and going from one extreme to the other there's almost no in-between. he rose from the height of his power of the wind had to
50, a $200 million you remember that monarchy in iran to within a year and a half could not make a single decision without the approval of the american ambassador. but the whole question of divine legitimacy and if that can be a sustained phenomenon in the modern age. said shakespeare had some brilliant minds in their you can kill me and get rid of me that god annointed me and only god can take away the strong. if you take away the strong
richard in the shah thought guides it was the gift to them. >> host: of the years how many of them did he have to answer to the british coming to the americans or to another authority before making big decisions? >> guest: 1941 through 1964 with the american ambassador at the time he really does have to answer to the british in the americans and there is very little he can do without the prior approval. he is dependent on their help the u.s. put almost $1 billion from 1953 through 1962 it was probably first recipient of foreign aid during that period.
so then you have the power to dictate in tell them what things to do. ironically which what the oil money got him it proved to be his undoing because the americans kept advising him throughout his reign that should open up the system to democratize and when he had all the many in the world he felt he did not listen to the americans and he really changed iran and it was a large and urban working class with culture
values and allowed to be in this urban force the only force allied to work in these areas. when the system went into crisis it was what was halted zero dash open to be a democracy but was a theocracy. >> host: did the shah always had a tenuous relationship with the mullahs? >> guest: on the one hand he would pick a fight with the mullahs when:80 k2 the
national state and eventually exiled him to iran -- iran the shah fled iran in 1963 with the help of the clergy in the british but he was brought back to power. so he had a flawed relationship and while he despised the radicals like kohmeni he felt the rest of the clergy, with the religious were his allies to fight the fight at the time the same idea but, the decision is the main threat to as he is willing to stand up to the communist that is
what he had the policy about everybody else to have a high-school and the elementary schools to create mosques with virtually every university it was remarkable. intolerance towards a religious organization. >> host: was the ever popular among the iranian people? >> i think he was when he came to power he was young and western-educated he had
a reputation so i think he was popular until about 51 or 52 but then it a very tense relationship developed with the nationalist movement and the fact that he fled and then came back i think that damaged his popularity but after 63 he really began to look at the reform and into the political system all of these make more popular through 73 or 74 but then it
got to his head and it abolished the party system and then he began to lose his popularity and then he was sick with cancer. he was diagnosed in 73 and the iranian people never knew he had cancer. >> host: you write in your book. >> host: in the chapter called the perfect storm it is hard to pinpoint the moment the coalition eventually overthrew the -- the shah began to coalesce. president carter's human-rights policies had an impact to reinvigorate the dormant democratic movement. >> guest: one of the things that is not in the
book but i had written about it, i was a political prisoner under the shah and overnight prison conditions began to change and a torture ended and overnight we understood amnesty international was coming they begin to clean up the prison and issue blankets and then with the rise of democracy with society at large people felt the shah is under pressure from jimmy carter and all of these suppressed pressures you cannot create a middle-class or educated technocratic
class when jimmy carter came they do the shah could not be as tough. >> host: why real a political prisoner? >> guest: i was young. the radicalism of the age that was easy to catch and i felt iran did not have a government but needed a more democratic government but with that idealism like many
in the era to demand a more just and democratic government from when wetback i began to teach until the police caught up with me. i spent one year in prison that made for the year particularly interesting was six months of it was in 80 months they would become the leaders of the country which was the entire clerical class. they were all there within six months. >> host: where did they catch up with you?
>> we met and discussed politics and organizing was not permitted at the time with those leftist ideas they cave and arrested me. >> host: review at the university or at home? >> guest: at the time when they arrested me i was the minister of education. he was a colleague at the university where he invited me to his office. >> host: he was the shah minister. >> guest: he was. many people thought but
halfway through my meeting we got a call of internal security that said my name had come up as someone who had associations with these groups and i was about to leave the ministry they grabbed me the way they wave grabbed with political prisoners to make sure you don't have the cyanide pill that was very popular in those days. the regime is far more butte -- brutal today but then they take me to the place and i spent six months there
in the famous prison where the clergy was. >> host: where you tortured? >> guest: acquisition as solitary confinement for one month which was the worst torture. i was beaten a couple of times but when we arrived jimmy carter was elected. and overnight you fluency of the borders have come down but if they rested my wife
when she was involved and other subtle forms of torture but the kind most of the regime is engaged in after word that was massive and the kind that the regime was engaged before we came because iran had a terrorist problem with pacs of terrorism and then they
arrested those people. >> host: abbas milani how well did you get to know the mullahs? >> guest: some of them i got do you know fairly well and i used to spend one hour per day with them. i used to teach english occasionally and was elected to become the next leader after kohmeni and when he found out they tortured in the islamic president people were killed with very sorry trials coming he spoke out and lost his job and his been imprisoned most of his life. that is 20th-century
politics someone within a breath of being the leader said i could not watch people being tortured and executed and he lost his job i got to know him. but all that is most people have reviewed the book from the "wall street journal" they have appointed more or less to keep their personal views to keep their preferences out of this to look at the shaw with the account. >> host: at the end who
was still boyle to the shah? >> guest: at the end unfortunately he did not remain loyal to them. he would be executed by the regime of the military again what is less known is that the carter administration around of member 1970 decides the shah is no longer capable of power since he becomes very active to create the rapprochement of the military and the clergy in to pick the most likely successor said the
army chose to realize the american government go bonkers supported the shah there in the streets for almost a year and a half but only to that end but what the shah decided to do is interesting. he arrested some of his most loyal servants because this way he thought he could stay ahead of the curve but i think anybody who studies the revolution it only increases the appetite ucb is when you put your own prime minister in prison may now want your head.
>> host: we have been talking with abbas milani this book has been reviewed by "the wall street journal" , at the end in the biography and the l.a. times says splendid the detailed biography. published by palgrave macmillan "the shah" is the name of the book we are on vacation at the hoover institution at stanford university.
>> did is an honor to introduce from the national security council to speak but currently a professor at spent -- penn state and also with handed is hillary who served at the state department and negotiated with the u.s. government with the iranian officials now a senior professor lecture at american university in washington and they're riding has appeared in your times and washington monthly of long others said they came to us last night from virginia and took the late-night train and put up with like to do is turn it over to you for comments to start off. >> thank you very much. i will start off for us today and then the begin by saying thank you for hosting us and for coming it is an honor and pleasure and me
led ford to the interesting discussion today. i will start with too provocative themes from our book is going to tehran by the united states must come to terms with the republic of iran. and the first of the theme is the united states is today and has been for the past two years in power it relative to the decline in the middle east and also we have been the beneficiary of america is ongoing decline in the middle east is the islamic republic of iran. if you are not sure you agree with these propositions of want to ask you to prepare their relative position of the united states and the islamic republic of vibration in the mideast today with where they were even with 9/11 just over 10 years ago. on the eve of 9/11, every
single government in the middle east was every'' one dash pro-american dash egypt and turkey are in negotiations to become pro-american like syria or libya or the taliban government in afghanistan are staying in iraq every single government was either pro-american in negotiations it to become pro-american or anti-iranian that is a good position for the united states in the middle east. but because of elections today governments across the middle east in egypt egypt, tunisia, libya, leban on egypt, tunisia, libya, lebanon,, they're all though longer pro-american or anti-iranian. they are all pursuing a least, at least independent forum policies which are by definition much less
enthusiastic about strategic cooperation with the united states and much more open to the islamic republic of iran. simply put today's relatively speaking united states is a profoundly weaker position in the middle east and the islamic republic of iran is in a stronger position. this is essentially happened because there has been a dramatic shift in the middle east balance of power. in our book, going to terrebonne, we describe why part of this shift is occurring because of the mistakes of the american policy in the middle east. but we also described in our book part of what is going on is something vastly underappreciated in the west, which are these successes of the islamic republic of iran that also drive the shift of the regional balance of power. we argued in our book, these
two are inextricably linked with the success of the islamic republic is driving that they're linked and in fact, a very coz dysfunctional policy toward the islamic republic of tehran that is at the heart of our decline in the middle east. we also argue that it will take a strategic realignment by the united states with the republic of iran to enable america's strategic recovery in the middle east. we unpacked use arguments first by examining the basis for u.s. dominance in the middle east. something increasingly driven since the end of the cold war by america's unique capability to project the enormous amounts of conventional military force into the middle east. no one else, not even chided can project this kind of military force into the
middle east today or four years to come. this has given the united states extraordinary economic and political influence in the middle east and we forced the military dominance in other key parts of the world. but our failures in afghanistan and iraq in particular have underscored and especially for the middle east republics, the limits of what american military might can accomplish. we argue these failures of the middle east policy are not just idiosyncratic generated products of the george to be bush said ministration but as we described in our book fees stemming from a much deeper source that cut through both democratic and republican did frustration than something we describe as the
united states each essentially giving in to the post cold war temptation to act as an imperial power in the middle east and this turned in policy with little regard for the reality on the ground in the middle east's proven deeply damaging to american interests, as a candidate in 2008 now president obama then seems to understand and he talked about courageously during the campaign and pledged not just to draw american troops from iraq but also the american mindset that had gotten into the strategic mistake to invade iraq in the first place and pledged to change the middle east policy but instead the obama administration has pursued policies as the predecessors
the same policies that did such damage to our strategic position and as a result the obama administration today is not just providing a stalled middle east peace process but the demise of the true state solution to the palestinian conflict and while the above it ministration military intervention in libya can and overthrow gadaffi it is now e. incubating in libya a significant threat to american security interests and as the detail in our book, going to tehran deal gone bad restoration has gone beyond the bush administration to trim the islamic republic to argue what we say is ward dangerous to discredit a gauge of it as a strategy to deal with the islamic republic of iran to say they tried to reach out and
failed and therefore the engagement is the house of fools. but with these policies under obama as watch the middle east balance of power has shifted even further away from the united states even more than at the end of the bush to administration. this brings me to a critically important parts of our book which is out the republic of iran it is the biggest beneficiary of the middle east. in our book how by pursuing a foreign policy to build a domestic political order to attract the middle eastern republic it has been able to take advantage of american mistakes to include --
improve its own position dramatically. the key to the islamic republic success is beyond the shift of their distribution of power. . . it is both encouraging and taking advantage of this very important transformation in the middle east. one of the most remarkable things about this shift in the middle east over the last decade away from the united states and our allies and toward iran and
its allies, is that it has had virtually nothing to do with iran's use of military force or economic coercion. the republic has not invaded anyone or sanctioned them. it is all about the islamic republic. in our book we have set the islamic republic and reliance on this power in this strategic context. the critical set of sources or the unique and unparalleled opportunity that we have had sit and listen to why the officials and diplomats explain how the world looks strategically from their point of view our research
and our interviews, we detail how we look at the world from tehran. nearly all of whom have been hostile to the very idea of an islamic republic. not just afghanistan but iranian diplomats inner conflicts that were killed. the islamic republic neighbor to its west, iraq under saddam hussein had helped them in other aerators killing 300,000 of its citizens. and today many of those same error countries that have helped iraq invaded and fight the obama or public, today they have thousands of u.s. troops and billions of dollars worth of the
weapons system. all ways and threatening to attack the republic to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction. they have built a strong defensive capability especially beyond its borders. they have acted ostensibly beyond the borders that's what have they done with the national security strategy to develop this cross power strategy. a strategy that they galvanizes these most intense grievances, including their grievances against the united states and israel in their grievances against their own unrepresented
pro-western settlements and regimes. it has aligned itself with public opinion itself in the middle east to constrain hostile governments from attacking it. just think about how they are a largely shia population that would react as we use this to attack the islamic republic today. now, u.s. military planners could hope that offering population could be passive, as i think that they assumed even maybe five years ago. but today that seems a little reckless. so for all the ridiculing that they have, the islamic republic appeals to regional public actually works. it works to constrain the
neighboring iran. iran has also worked to reinforce these strategies over a number of years. why as they pick what we would call winners from shia groups in and the rock and even the muslim brotherhood in egypt. he keeps political allies in key regions across the middle east. a years long bet on these groups has paid off. because now the regional allies has become the most influential player in their respected amounts today. the result is that is the islamic republic of iran. and if ideas of the pacific tory government and independent foreign policy has real influence and power in countries
across the middle east from egypt to other places that were once clearly in america's sights. and strategic return, it has been and is using not drones and tanks, but they are using the political awakening of the middle eastern republic to author the very nature of power politics in the middle east. as we described in our book, this has been an effective foreign policy and national security policy. one that is repeatedly underappreciated in the united states. >> to pick up on hillary's point of this strategy being a real strategy for a regional balance of power that policymakers have
long seen against the islamic republic, i think it is important to note that especially for americans to understand that it is only an islamic republic which can include the kind of games. the shaw could not have done it. only the islamic republic of iran could do it. it persists in depicting the republic is an illegitimate system it is in imminent danger of overthrow.
virtually since the republic's founding out of the iranian revolution. and it has consistently defied their relentless predictions of its class or deceased. it has emancipatory election of islamic governance and a strong commitment to foreign policy. this model is what a majority of iranians living inside their country one. they don't want a political order rounded and secular liberalism. they want to generate a political order that reflects their cultural values.
they want freedom and independence and progress in the context of national identity. that is what the islamic republic offers them the chance to pursue. this was the difference of them in the constitution and even though the iranians who want the islamic republic to revolve in significant ways come at the end of the day even most of those iranians in the course of our visits, a number of those policymakers that we talked to have pointed out to us that they don't call themselves an islamic
state. that implies that iranians know that they have not obtained. enron, the islamic republic is by definition something that is very much a work in progress. and they have made progress in a number of impressive ways. contrary to deeply rooted but ill-informed western stereotypes. they have achieved progressive outcomes in alleviating poverty and in promoting educational access and expanding opportunities for women in the shaw's routine everyday. we are happy to go into this more in the question-and-answer session. but let me give you examples are not what i am talking about.
the islamic republic had developed a health care system that has greatly increased life expectancy and greatly reduce infant and child mortality and ron. the provision of health care has been particularly impressive since the revolution and it is basically equalized to help out the urban and rural settings in a manner that is quite extraordinary in international context. it introduces rural health care delivery and underserved parts of the mississippi belt. it is about flea increasing literacy rates basically
eliminating gender disparity in educational aspects and one fact of the progress is almost completely unappreciated in the last is the way that access to higher education includes a status iranian women. especially that westerners would consider this unacceptable in their own societies and the majority of universities are now female. the majority of them are now female. and women's presence is now felt across many disciplines. notwithstanding, we had this
with no direct connection on the ground and a cadre of so-called iran experts, many of whom are ex-patriots were iranian americans will flood the revolution in don't see the islamic public. they continue to misinterpret the iranian politics. telling us that the system is on the verge of collapse. we will continue to lose ground in the middle east. and a good example in 2009 we will have an office of wishful
thinking on the green movement that emerged out of this campaign, it is solving america's strategic problem for the middle east. they did so even though every logic was before or after the election, including polls conducted and it shows what with the reelection of roughly two thirds of the vote and we
embrace election fraud even though neither this nor anyone else ever presented evidence of how the election was stolen we portray this as a mass popular uprising anyone prepared to look soberly at reality the green movement did not represent anything close it was already contracting. but the myth of the islamic instability did not die.
it continues to shape the iranian politics. most of the pundits who had jumped onto the regime hopped back on for no regardless. undergird 21st, 2011, he appeared on cnn and offered to bed at the arena and iranian res
work. i worked with two of them and that is what we did. we even bet that not only what the islamic republic still be iran's government in a years time, but that the balance of influence and power in the middle east would be soaking further in its favor. almost two years since it made its wager that we were eager to collect on. later in 2011, the islamic republic supreme leader and president over the intelligence industry and the same task of the iran experts said that this was overblown, per train him as
unprecedented as part of a insecure regime fracturing it. and this included mental ignorance about the political history, which since the revolution has been marked by much the same kind of intense conversation amongst these individuals in the united states. tensions between the founding father and first elected president resulted in the impeachment during war crimes during 1981 after the reformist became president in 1997. so in iran, between the elected presidents and leaders and they
are not in indicator of systemic crisis, but politics as usual in a system with institutionalized checks and balances. creating this approach among many experts in the united states and if iranians display distortive position within their system that virtually everywhere else in the world we call minor politics, then our experts tell us that this is something abnormal and pathological and that the system must be coming apart. it is not. despite these experiences and other similar experiences that we go through in the book, american political and policy leads continue the idea of the myth of elizabeth simi and
fertility. this comes into two interlocking productions, that sanctions are finally working and number two that the air in awakening has left them isolated in its own neighborhood. hillary and i have just returned last month and we are happy to talk about economic conditions in the q&a. let me just say that no one who has walked the streets of tehran, who has seen that the economy is not collapsing one who has talked to a range of iranians could think that they are compelling either the implosion or surrender to americans on the nuclear issue. that is delusional.
the same pundits who say that sanctions are working, they advise you to embrace the logical defined proposition that the same social currency that proposed american leaders in tunisia and egypt are empowering those across the arab world. and will ron transform this into a secular liberal state? that is truly logic defying. they see the air of a ranking as hugely positive they judge correctly and it will also become less enthusiastic about your teacher cooperation in the united states, let alone israel, and more open to the message of
tehran about foreign independence. tehran doesn't need to be more pro-iranian, it just needs him to be less pro-american unless pro-israel and more independent. one hears in washington that because of the arab awakening, tehran is going to lose syria end its only arab ally with dire consequences of the regional position or even its internal stability. first syria is not their only ally today. it is not even their most important ally today. thank you to all those who supported us after 9/11.
it will be over some drone and about half the syrian society, even if bashar al-assad felt compelled and under the circumstances this is hardly likely to become an ally of the west. any sort of representative post-bashar al-assad government isn't going to be more pro-israel in such a government may be less about keeping and that will be just fine with the islamic republic. and iranian officials believed that overall developments in the middle east are continuing to steer the regional balance hillary and i think that one of
the most dangerous myths promoted by some of america's growing experts is that the islamic republic is that they are so ideologically committed to anti-americanism puts domestic legitimacy that it can't ever contemplate improving relations with the united states. this is thoroughly contradicted by the historical record. the islamic republic has been prepared for decades. they are prepared for this. but in the uranium deal, this is only possible on the basis of equality and mutual respect, meaning that the united states needs to accept the islamic republic. it is the united states it hasn't that hasn't been willing to deal on this basis.
his administration has participated in negotiations with iran and used the unwillingness to surrender u.s. demands in these talks intensify sanctions and launch cyberwar against the islamic republic and come closer to regime change as the ultimate goal of american policy. u.s. officials are being to internally conflicted to negotiate seriously, it is washington that has not been diplomatically serious. iran has been prepared except more intrusive including its nuclear activities if western powers recognize its rights with the international safeguards. the president obama, like his predecessor refuses to acknowledge the right to enrich. this would require acknowledging
the islamic republic as a legitimate order representing the interests and a rising regional power on willingness to coordinate its foreign policy to washington, as for example, washington expected this and this is why hillary and i say that obama has done more damage even than george w. bush because he has discredited the idea of engagement by saying that he tried but failed when in fact he has not seriously tried. >> we have time for questions? >> yes. >> no american president has been prepared to do this and accept the islamic republic. but this is a key argument. this is the only way that diplomacy can succeed and there is an important precedent for this in modern american history.
nixon and kissinger are open to china. it was not that they talked to beijing. the united states has been talking to them for years. in ambassadorial level talks that have gone nowhere. their achievement was that they accepted and persuaded their countrymen to accept the people's republic of china as legitimate political order representing legitimate national interests were its own interest needed to come to terms with this. that is what we need to do. so is obama going to be up to this in his second term? thank you very much.
[applause] >> we have about 20 minutes left and i just wanted to ask one question as i read through your book. iran has never threatened to attack another state or even attack one. we got a little bit of experience when i was at west point on the 21st of january in 1981. when we had dinner with the hostages as they came back and i think that there would be some argument there long that regard. i spent two years in afghanistan in several of the operations we did. we uncovered caches and weapons that were marked with iranian markings and our assessment was that they had come from iran.
we have had some discussions there about iranian involvement in that aberration. so i hear you they have not invaded other countries, but clearly supporting in other ways , something that i have seen. i'm wondering how you could respond to those activities. >> these are all such important points. especially when it comes to an aggressive state that the rhetoric of some of the rhetoric is translated or construed that the islamic republic is aggressive and particularly so vis-à-vis the state of israel. they are annihilating an off the
now. it doesn't accept its way this includes a large segment of the population and they are opposed to that. the republic also has views in terms of its neighbors and how the orders are that see a lot of these political orders as hostile. but what we're trying to get across is what iran does to what it sees as the threat. not to threaten or attack or invade and they have never attacked or invaded any other country. that is not what it does. what it does is something even more powerful, something even more potent vis-à-vis the united states and as we have a conventional military power. which is it develops relationships with groups on the
ground in those relationships have much to do with us. with the soft power of your and governance and foreign policy and its resistance to occupation. whether that is the u.s. occupation in afghanistan, essentially or as it was our rock. it does that very effectively. like other states, especially with their support. that is not the problem. we can outrun them anytime. the u.s. military can project overwhelming military force in any arena. that's not the problem that we have especially those across the
region. that is what we don't have an answer to that is what is radically shifting the balance of power. we would be in the great situation that we were in the 1980s and 1990s. were the islamic republic had no way to oppose this. but what they have done is they have seized on this political awakening in the middle east. >> cohead? >> please identify yourself. >> he said some very important things. but what we have lost with iran is trust. we did not allow the shots come in and we ended a relationship since we started in the united
states. goes back 2500 years. but let's realize that every tempo has the everlasting light. suddenly you have this population. it's not just the jewish population. we are admiring everything we have said. but put yourself, any one of us and would we trust america we were ahead of the state of what they did to the shop. this is what is frightening. if that could ever be repaired. it is fragile, in my opinion. i know iran, i traveled with them, i believe everything, what
about egypt today. the islamic republic. what will happen there because no one even knows. they are going to give relations to israel. >> it is a very difficult issue. we argue in the book that the one known antidote is transparency. and i think for many americans, this issue comes squarely focused on the nuclear issue today. that we cannot possibly trust what they may or may not say or may or may not do with the mechanism. for many they are not going to
trust us and for many iranians they won't trust in the state. but the key is transparency. if there is a better relationship between them and the united states, the real strategic alignment, then we argue that the islamic republic would sign onto and would agree to more international mechanisms and treaties and agreements or increase transparency so for example on the nuclear issue, we are never going to get the islamic republic to stop, as they see it. i think there is a lot of credibility to it. it is a sovereign and hvd right. what you can get there the better relationship is for the islamic republic to sign onto even more more protocols and the additional protocol that would allow even more intrusive
expansions. if you have this you could have joint ventures. i know today that seems a bit crazy. but that is really a long-term answer if you have iranians and americans working together, and that is the way that you will know that they don't have a secret nuclear program. as much intelligence as you want to put out there, and having scientists work together. but that cannot happen unless the united states accepts them as a legitimate political order and respects the national interests. >> we are talking about the resident correspondent and my question is a little bit
different. i appreciate all you have said about the things that we should understand. but i don't think that's the real issue. i think that a few of us had wanted better advice and more realistic assessment. so i think that is secondary. why are they pushing this an accurate assessment. and to me, what i see is that maybe they don't want iran to do this for peaceful purposes. so when it comes to their
enrichment capabilities, i'm wondering from your experience what your senses of this whole situation. >> it is a profoundly important observation. and from our experience in government since we left, and in some ways you could argue the imperial inclination was always there. we were constrained in terms of our ability to put large amounts of force on the ground.
we were on the whole pretty reluctant to do it. once the cold war ends, that constraint appears to be gone. so the united states embarks on his 20 year project. we are imposing the sanctions on iraq that killed more than a million iraqis. we do it with post-9/11 campaigns in iraq and afghanistan. that has made the united states weaker and less able to achieve its own goals in this important part of the world. but it is both culturally and politically still overdetermined
in the united states. we cannot be safe and secure. all people really want to live like us. when this is not working, and this is actually not congruent with reality. we are having ideological change in cultural change and that is really really hard. it is really, really hard to do
and i believe that that is why that people keep coming back to the same experts time after time after time. they say the right things. they say the comforting things. we honestly don't say particularly comforting things in this way. >> hello, for all of the indications that you advertise them you are rather optimistic about what could've happened.
we are optimistic in terms of what happens. we detail in our book, "going tehran" tehran: why the united states must come to terms with the islamic republic of iran", particularly in the last part of the chapter, how the president of the united states is able to recover its position in a similarly vexing time when it could've faced strategic disasters in vietnam and korea. we were able to rescue her position by coming to terms with the peoples republic of china. for many years people said that the united states can possibly accept the people's republic of china. our allies would be in dire straits that we accepted the people's republic of china all of this economic principally
because our approach with china took away the dramatic instability in asia that the conflict had brought. not only to our two countries but to our allies. but china has not accepted it either. but if we argue that they couldn't come to terms and have strategically aligned with each other, we could, in a sense, like china and the united states, bracket issues where we disagree and resolve and commit to look at these issues and discuss these issues and perhaps to resolve these issues so took
that this is a fools errand. not only is it a fools errand with the republic of iran, but it has gained ground. but another question about egypt earlier as well. egypt is going the same direction. we had a settlement and not having to accept a political order that they saw as repressive to follow arabs and muslims. not just for iran, but for all of the other countries that needed to come to terms we can help do that with the islamic republic.
>> think you're taking my question. i am very interested in the opportunity and when i look at the middle east today and what goes on across the middle east, i see a few big problems. while this is a two-part question, i would like to talk about military terms and influence. and on the question of energy. we are using saudi arabia and iran and if that is possible, that a potential of domestic energy production open the door
to an energy solution? cement i think i understand what you are saying. >> what is going on in the middle east is that saudi arabia, as it has done that in a number of points in its modern history is basically using a particular sort of islam, we tend to call it something in the west, although the saudis don't like that term. this actively promotes this tool of its foreign policy even
though a saudi is part of the united states come i don't think that is in the interest of the united states. we call this the leading state sponsor of terrorism there is something that the saudis are doing here. it is part of their own national security strategy the united states by tying itself with this aspect, this is only going to contribute to the further
erosion over time. especially because of shale oil, that we don't really need is for energy purposes. i think that this is quite foolish over the long run. this has been built up subtly and the energy producers have been increasing they need a hundred dollar barrel of oil. they are worried if they don't have those kinds of revenues
that they can put into these kinds of population kinds of things. or we could take these off the market and the saudis will increase production and cover everything and it will all be okay. well, it doesn't exactly work that way. the world doesn't work that way. >> thank you very much, let's give them a big hand. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> our next "washington journal" is live from the work of virginia where we will look up port at port security and operations. we will talk with the director of the port authority.
then the president and ceo of the american association of port authorities on how ports operate with the imports and exports that come out of that. "washington journal" is live on c-span every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. coming up next, president truman's oldest grandchild talks about his 2012 trips to hear she met. survivors of the bombings talked to new york city high school students and later at 11:00 p.m. eastern, the 1946 war department film a tale of two cities looking at the aftermath of the atomic bombings.
yet we have more coverage every weekend on booktv. >> coming up next, george lewis and biographer kitty kelley. along with our schedule you can see our programs anytime at get the latest updates throughout the week. follow us on facebook and twitter. >> now the hoover institution discusses with abraham sofaer and his book "taking on iran: strength, diplomacy, and the iranian threat." it is 30 minutes.
>> host: .author of the book is abraham sofaer come a senior fellow at the hoover institution and his book is "taking on iran: strength, diplomacy, and the iranian threat." is our current strategy of sanctions working against iran? >> guest: certainly we are putting pressure economically on everything. but it is hurting the people of iran more than it's hurting the revolution. so the answer is no. >> guest: in your book you talk about the irgc. who are they? >> guest: they were created with the assignment of defending the reagan revolution. they have assets and
responsibilities. they control their own industries and have their own army and navy and their own missile program and they are under this program in charge of the nuclear program. they also have a force, they called it, which does assassinations and other interventions abroad. we are getting to the exploitation of that in a minute. >> host: so what is the relationship with president of iran? >> guest: the president has but it is something that the president has spoken of also. it